We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

Jeep2011:I know so many people who for Zimmerman with all of the right wing bat guano crazy they can muster. I also know some left Wing bat guano crazy people who hate Zimmerman and love the ACLU.

Hopefully, the ACLU position will cause the crazies heads to explode and we will be done with crazy.

/knows the ACLU takes positions from all sides of the political spectrum/It was just a hopeless dream.

I wasn't a fan of the Federal case in the Rodney King incident either. Bringing someone up on different charges for the same offense seems to me to be at least a violation of the spirit of the double jeopardy clause, and even in the case of an injustice, I've been leery and untrusting of letting the government do that.

RexTalionis:We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.

Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?

Mentat:RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.

Popcorn Johnny:Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

They aren't morons. While Obama was bearing his soul to the media, the government was getting the FISA court to rubber stamp renewal of domestic surveillance.

They are principled people who put their personal opinions below what is right

Most of the time. Sometimes, they do pick and choose which rights they feel are worth defending.

Well, of course. They have a certain view as to what "civil liberties" means. What would you expect, that they defend you no matter what your case is if you walk into their office and claim its a 'civil liberties case'?

There's a difference between picking which case is relevant to a right, and which case affects a right at all.

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.

If you want to come across as being a Twilight fan, that's your business.

Better a "Twilight" fan than a delusional fan that treats a dead sociopath like a teen heart throb.

I think it's more insane for people to champion either one of these award-winners since no one really knows what actually happened that night. Neither side is willing to accept even the HINT of a flaw. The Martin people don't think the suspicious jewelry reflects on his personality, and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality. They're all insufficiently skeptical about the events of that night.

vygramul:and the Zimmerman people don't think assaulting a cop reflects on his personality.

Zim was a a bar with friends and saw some dude grab one of his peeps. Turns out the guy was a plain clothes undercover cop. The fact that the charges were eventually dropped should be a huge red flag that this wasn't what some of Team Trayvon want to make it out to be. Do you really farking think they'd drop assault on an officer charges if they were valid?

Popcorn Johnny:Holder and Obama are incompetent, race baiting morons. Stand your ground and race had not a farking thing to do with the Zim case and yet there they are on TV talking about both of them every chance they get.

RexTalionis:Mentat: RexTalionis: We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has proven many times over the course of their history that their interpretation of the Constitution isn't always right.

Maybe. But, for now, that's the law.

And there's no better way to change the law then to do absolutely nothing.

vygramul:I wasn't a fan of the Federal case in the Rodney King incident either. Bringing someone up on different charges for the same offense seems to me to be at least a violation of the spirit of the double jeopardy clause, and even in the case of an injustice, I've been leery and untrusting of letting the government do that.

I feel the exact same way about leveling multiple charges hoping one sticks...I.E. charging someone with murder 2, murder 3, and manslaughter.

As for the Civil Rights violations suit, they couldn't prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of hate. How are they going to prove he did it specifically because of his race? That would be a complete waste of tax payer money.

RexTalionis:We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court can't agree among themselves what the Constitution means. How else do you explain all the 5-4 decisions? If you go to your auto dealer and 3 mechanics tell you it's the water pump, and 2 mechanics tell you it's the thermostat, are you going to trust them?

There was almost no chance whatsoever that Zimmerman was going to be convicted of homicide or even manslaughter in a fair trial. There just wasn't evidence available to prove it, and the prosecution, unsurprisingly, was terrible. They should have gone after something like reckless endangerment, put him away for a couple of years, and pulled his gun license.

I don't doubt that race was an issue in the altercation -- although absolutely it was an issue in the media and in the trial. I think Zimmerman is an ass, a danger to himself and others, and that he could just as easily and just as likely shot and killed a white kid. If Zimmerman was 'protecting' my neighborhood, you bet I'd be rooting against him.

vygramul:There's a difference between picking which case is relevant to a right, and which case affects a right at all.

... No, I do not think there is much difference there. If a case is relevant to a right, the case affects a right. Unless you mean a case is relevant to interpretation of a right and a case affects a right of an individual but would have no influence on case law since interpretation of the right is well established in the courts. In this latter instance, I would agree the ACLU does this, but I would say the ACLU does this to better utilize resources. As far as I know, though, the ACLU only chooses not to engage in Second Amendment cases because of the stance the Second Amendment is an individual rather than civil liberty and the fact organizations such as the NRA exist for this sole purpose.

You should only have to face criminal or civil charges, not both. I know that that is not how it is in this country, but that is the way that it should be. It is bullschitt that a criminal court can find you not guilty but then a civil court can find you guilty of the same crime. How in all of Hades is that not double jeopardy?

RexTalionis:We are writing to clearly state the ACLU's position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction.

In other words: "Even though the Supreme Court said we're wrong, we're choosing to believe in our interpretation of the Constitution."

At the time of Brown v. Board of Education, the matter of school segregation was settled Constitutional law in opposition to Brown. ACLU filed anyway. They won.

There's also an originalist argument that the current double jeopardy interpretation is contrary to original intent.